New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and dominate the
skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time. With a
thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic bomber. It
should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last so long.
Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.

Or for a more advanced plane how about a Grumman F-4 without the turbocharger.
I'm not sure the industry of the time was able to build large complex machines of sheet
aluminum, but if so this is a nice plane for world war one.

Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.

The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...
The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.

And the Germans certainly had flamethrowers by the end of the war.


--
Nik Simpson

In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.

The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.


Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...


Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.


Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.

The typical bomb used for anti personnel use was the 25lb
cooper bomb which was a fragmentation weapon,essentially
a large hand grenade. They also dropped flechettes.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.

The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.


Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.

Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
could afect a short stretch

They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication
trenches which allowed troops to move into the front
line without being exposed to attack. There were also
more than one line of trenches.

The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination
of new technology which included fighter bombers
and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies
managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks
than the preceding 4 years.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
could afect a short stretch

They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication
trenches which allowed troops to move into the front
line without being exposed to attack. There were also
more than one line of trenches.

The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination
of new technology which included fighter bombers
and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies
managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks
than the preceding 4 years.



Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems
that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into
caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your
skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the
trenches or die. You don't fire napalm, although there were instances
of pouring it into caves, you drop it from the air. You make the
trench systems traps, the same way the proper use of tanks made them
traps.
http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/publi...4/1/upload.htm

"Jack Linthicum" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote

Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
could afect a short stretch

Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems
that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into
caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your
skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the
trenches or die.

And lets not forget that those WWI trench systems used a lot of wood
in their construction, which would burn fiercely once hit with a napalm
bomb.

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...


Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.

The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.


Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.

Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.